The death of analogue photography.

[FruitFlakes]

Yes, an ideal 2nd camera companion to a classic Canon EOS 35mm film SLR, such as the EOS-3 or EOS 30 and 30v, as that 6D will still work with all those classic Canon EF lenses (but neither will work with the digital crop-sensor EF-S lenses).

So anyone with a classic Canon EOS 35mm SLR can seemingly enjoy one of those new-fangled full frame Canon 6Ds for a bargain basement price, using the EF lenses they already have. Furthermore, if you wait another year then the 6D will almost certainly cost even less... unlike a prosumer spec EOS 35mm film SLR, such as the EOS-3 or the EOS 30v, for which prices continue to rise. And thereby hangs a tale! Who actually has the "insane value" kit?

Yes, that 30v will rise from £45 to... £50. Be thankful that youtubers haven't cottoned on to them like point and shoots.

 

[Mr Badger]

Yes, that 30v will rise from £45 to... £50. Be thankful that youtubers haven't cottoned on to them like point and shoots.

You've forgotten to type the £100 before the £45 and £50 there and, for a nice 30v in full working order, that's something of a bargain... if you can actually find one like that for sale! How long before the 6D, on its way down the price scale, passes the 30v? 18 months, 2 years? I'm fortunate to own both, so hopefully the loss on one should be cancelled out by the other, and I can enjoy the wonderful photos they both take in the meantime!

Banter aside, I really do enjoy the best of both worlds with those two cameras, sharing those EF lenses between them with full functionality. That's the thing with film and digital, you don't have to exclusively use one or the other, you can enjoy both. Plus, as others have said, for certain types of photography (or just relaxation) taking your time over a shot and having to think what you are doing with a fully manual camera and as few as 8 shots on a roll of 120 can improve your photography skills.

However, film can be a very cruel mistress, and if you get something wrong, particularly with slide film or one of the more fussy print films, it will give you the results you actually deserve. It seems not everyone can handle that level of honest critique though, so they prefer to rely on 12 stops of dynamic range and Lightroom as a crutch. In which case, are they a photographer or a lab technician? A bit of an inflammatory statement? Perhaps... but then again, sometimes the truth can sting a bit.

It all depends what you want or need from your photography.. results at any cost, or an experience more akin to driving a classic sports car down a country lane on a sunny day with the roof down.

I bought a 6D to replace a 40D, which I gave to my granddaughter, just so I could share lenses with my EOS 3 and 50E.

I bet you've enjoyed it too, the 6D produces some lovely looking photos.

 

[FruitFlakes]

There was a 30v sitting at a local charity shop for £45 last December. Or was it a 33v? Someone got a good deal either way.

 

[AZ6]

Very interesting to see that some EOS models (EOS1v, EOS 3) are selling at higher prices than equivalent (and IMO, better) Nikon film cams (F5, F100). I suppose there aren't so many high end Canon cameras to choose from like with Nikon and there's the FD vs EF lens mount thing as well. Maybe the more plasticky nature of the Canons means there's less good ones about. Seem that the recent trend for reviving film is pushing up the value of old kit. Wish I'd bought some Leica etc a few years ago; prices have doubled, trebelled even! Mind, you can still buy summat like a Minolta Dynax 9xi for under a hundred quid.

 

[Mr Badger]

There was a 30v sitting at a local charity shop for £45 last December. Or was it a 33v? Someone got a good deal either way.

Are you sure it wasn't the standard 30 or 33, as anywhere between £40 and £80 (depending on condition) is about right for one of those? So still not a bad price if it was in nice nick and full working order. If it was a 30v I'd have bitten their hands off at that price!

The 30v was produced at the end of the 35mm SLR era and was one of the last film cameras launched by Canon. They didn't sell as many, so they're much harder to find, hence the collectors premium price! Are they worth £100 more than the EOS 30? From a photography point of view, definitely not as the 30v only had minor improvements to it over its predecessor (a backlight on the LCD panel, TTL II flash metering and a minor tweak to the AF system (which was perfectly good on the original 30), and a crackle type paint finish. However, if you like your cameras and want to own one of the last of the film era prosumer greats, then it's probably worth it.

 

[Olitography]

Film isn't dying, its getting more popular, you don't need new cameras you need people who know how to use the old ones

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Very interesting to see that some EOS models (EOS1v, EOS 3) are selling at higher prices than equivalent (and IMO, better) Nikon film cams (F5, F100).

I think this is partly because of certain big names in the film community, particularly weddings using the 1v. I would have one myself had it not eaten it's own shutter within a day of owning it. Also there's the selection of beautiful Canon lenses such as the 50L F1.2 that Nikon doesn't have an equivalent to.

I had typed lots more about the original point of this thread but the people who already shoot film on here already know and the people who don't are happy and won't be swayed. No one bangs the film drum more than I on here, and I don't own nor would ever care to own a digital camera again but at the same time I also know that this is largely the way of the world now and image capture and consumption is higher than it ever has been. Photography is accessible to everyone at minimal costs and as a result has been devalued, diluted and dismissed by many people. Even the name of this very forum is a misnomer as photography itself is rarely talked about in the truest sense of the word.

 

[TheBigYin]

Maybe the more plasticky nature of the Canons means there's less good ones about

pretty damned sure that my EOS1v is a magnesium alloy chasis... okay, the EOS3 is the same polycarbonate that they make pretty much all the modern digital jobs from (still, with the exception of the EOS1 digitals, that retain the magnesium alloy chassis..

To be honest, i've a 1v and a 3 that did over a year on the cruise liners - call it 35-40 rolls of 36 a day, 6 days a week. All things considered the EOS3 looks in better nick, some of the paint chips on the 1v make it look "worn in"

But, critically, open the back of the camera, look at the film transport areas, and the pressure plates on both cameras barely look like they've had more than 30 rolls through 'em...

from the EOS-1V Features Tech PDF



Basically, glass fibre reinforced polycarbonate resin in the internal chassis to minimise "ringing" effect (mass damping) of shutter movements at higher speeds. Externals are pretty much all either Aluminium or Magnesium alloy, as borne out by pretty much every scratch I managed to inflict on the poor beast over its (hard) working life with its previous owner and myself...

 

[AZ6]

I think this is partly because of certain big names in the film community, particularly weddings using the 1v. I would have one myself had it not eaten it's own shutter within a day of owning it. Also there's the selection of beautiful Canon lenses such as the 50L F1.2 that Nikon doesn't have an equivalent to.

Hmm. Nikon does have a 50mm f1.2 MF lens. I'd very much doubt the weddings thing has anything to do with prices at all. I'd say it's more than likely because those with EF lenses have less choice of 'good' Canon cams, there's far more choice with Nikon. And there are probably less good working EOS cams around; most were pretty plasticky and broke quite easily. My EOS 1 isn't a patch on my F5 or even F100, in terms of build quality. So scarcity adds value.

I had typed lots more about the original point of this thread but the people who already shoot film on here already know and the people who don't are happy and won't be swayed. No one bangs the film drum more than I on here, and I don't own nor would ever care to own a digital camera again but at the same time I also know that this is largely the way of the world now and image capture and consumption is higher than it ever has been. Photography is accessible to everyone at minimal costs and as a result has been devalued, diluted and dismissed by many people. Even the name of this very forum is a misnomer as photography itself is rarely talked about in the truest sense of the word.

I do agree with a lot of this. Too much Instagram filter type crap out there; 'ooh what an amazing photo!' Yes, because the camera's electronics and then fancy automated post processing did the hard work. Less 'craft' around from what I see. I try to go to photo exhibs, and am often quite disappointed, as the quality of the actual photography is often not outstanding. More focus on 'concept' rather than execution. It should be a marriage of both, in my onion. Digital photography has enabled me to become a better photographer, because it allows me to evaluate results much more quickly, and the cams are far more capable (for eg in very low light). But then economics has a major part to play; I could barely afford film back then; now, I have expensive cams, more lenses and an expensive computer to work with. So it's swings and roundabouts. And whilst I do agree that photography as a craft, an art form, has been 'devalued', there's a lot of really great photos out there, and whole new generations interested in recording the world around them. This is something to be celebrated. No good moaning about the 'good old days', cos that's pointless; things evolve and change. I was a fairly late converter to digital, mainly for economic reasons tbh, and I'd long considered film the superior medium, but now, I won't look back. I still enjoy taking pics with film, but it's like classic cars; there are much better tools available now. Ignoring/refusing to use digital is only denying yourself more possibilities.

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

Very interesting to see that some EOS models (EOS1v, EOS 3) are selling at higher prices than equivalent (and IMO, better) Nikon film cams (F5, F100). I suppose there aren't so many high end Canon cameras to choose from like with Nikon and there's the FD vs EF lens mount thing as well. Maybe the more plasticky nature of the Canons means there's less good ones about.

The FD vs EF thing lost its relevance a long time ago. With Canon EOS SLR bodies, any genuine Canon EF lens will work on it with full functionality, unlike Nikon's rather baffling situation with only partial functionality between some bodies and lenses. If you've been a Nikon user for years you'll have grown up with this system and know all about it. If you're a newcomer to AF 35mm film SLRs then it's a confusing minefield, which puts people off. Canon EOS is easy; if it's a canon EF lens, then it will work fully on an EOS SLR, regardless of it being digital or film.

As for 'plasticky', I believe the EOS 1v had a magnesium alloy body, and Canon used glass-fibre reinforced polycarbonate on the EOS-3, which has actually worn very well over the years, unlike the sticky situation you can find yourself in with some Nikon cameras of a similar era! As for Nikon being better in your opinion, what were most professional sports and press photographers using between 2000 and the advent of pro DSLRs in around 2005? The answer is, the Canon EOS 1v. So that's why their prices are higher, the legend lives on, regardless of any Nikon v Canon banter or rivalry. Don't get me wrong, Nikon made some very fine cameras, as did Canon, but I think the lens compatibly thing clinches it for Canon these days in terms of versatility, and that's being reflected in the price of top-end classic 35mm Canon AF SLRs.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Hmm. Nikon does have a 50mm f1.2 MF lens. I'd very much doubt the weddings thing has anything to do with prices at all. I'd say it's more than likely because those with EF lenses have less choice of 'good' Canon cams, there's far more choice with Nikon. And there are probably less good working EOS cams around; most were pretty plasticky and broke quite easily. My EOS 1 isn't a patch on my F5 or even F100, in terms of build quality. So scarcity adds value.

Yes a great MF lens, but not a great AF lens. As for the wedding thing, when people want to shoot like the big dogs, they tend to gravitate towards the same equipment they shoot with and the likes of Jose Villa, Elizabeth Messina and a few others all use the 1v which I think helps with it's demand amongst that demographic of shooters. I used to frequent a few of the FB groups of wedding photographers doing the same and the 1v would be their go-to 35mm body.

The F5 is a beast and it's colour matrix metering is supposedly superb (Haven't tried it yet).

there's a lot of really great photos out there, and whole new generations interested in recording the world around them. This is something to be celebrated.

I am not anti-digital. I just don't want or like it for ME. And Thant's ok. I also know the excellent photography that is prevalent today and I have books here by people who use exclusively digital. I used to want to learn to shoot like McNally. I still believe photography is such a powerful medium for communication and love to see it done well regardless of the medium used.

Ignoring/refusing to use digital is only denying yourself more possibilities.

For me personally, I don't agree. More possibilities for what? I in no way miss digital capture and if, as per the title of this thread, the death of analogue photography happened, I would probably quit altogether.

Film has made me a better photographer.

 

[FruitFlakes]

Are you sure it wasn't the standard 30 or 33, as anywhere between £40 and £80 (depending on condition) is about right for one of those? So still not a bad price if it was in nice nick and full working order. If it was a 30v I'd have bitten their hands off at that price!

The 30v was produced at the end of the 35mm SLR era and was one of the last film cameras launched by Canon. They didn't sell as many, so they're much harder to find, hence the collectors premium price! Are they worth £100 more than the EOS 30? From a photography point of view, definitely not as the 30v only had minor improvements to it over its predecessor (a backlight on the LCD panel, TTL II flash metering and a minor tweak to the AF system (which was perfectly good on the original 30), and a crackle type paint finish. However, if you like your cameras and want to own one of the last of the film era prosumer greats, then it's probably worth it.

It was a 33v, didn’t have the eye control logo on it. Yes, I know it was one of the last 35mm SLRs from Canon, but I don’t have any EF lenses and the shop was open when I would be working (it’s on my normal evening running route).

 

[AZ6]

pretty damned sure that my EOS1v is a magnesium alloy chasis

There's a bit of metal in there somewhere, but there's a lot of plastic too. I see the EOS 1 being similar to my F801s (or even my D600) in that respect. My F4 is noticeably more metally. The EOS 1 and F100 weigh the same with batteries. The F4 is another 200g or so heavier. Substantial. Interestingly, the PDB-E2 adds a huge chunk of weight to the EOS 1, and feels really well built, proper lump of metal that. But then there's that silly flimsy little plastic door for those tiny function buttons. Oh and the viewfinder eyecup is a crap fit.

 

[Mr Badger]

It was a 33v, didn’t have the eye control logo on it. Yes, I know it was one of the last 35mm SLRs from Canon, but I don’t have any EF lenses and the shop was open when I would be working (it’s on my normal evening running route).

The 33v usually fetches less as it's not seen as being as desirable as the 30v with its eye controlled AF system, which works very well indeed and I find it so handy, it's like having a psychic camera when it comes to AF point selection! OK, it's only got 7 AF points as opposed to the 45 on an EOS-3, but I find it works just as well for most types of photography. The 35 zone metering system on the 30 and 30v is great too. Amazing value for what you pay for an EOS 30 these days. Perhaps give some thought to one, pair it with the Canon EF STM 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens and you've got a really compact, quiet little AF 35mm SLR set up?

 

[AZ6]

The FD vs EF thing lost its relevance a long time ago. With Canon EOS SLR bodies, any genuine Canon EF lens will work on it with full functionality, unlike Nikon's rather baffling situation with only partial functionality between some bodies and lenses. If you've been a Nikon user for years you'll have grown up with this system and know all about it. If you're a newcomer to AF 35mm film SLRs then it's a confusing minefield, which puts people off. Canon EOS is easy; if it's a canon EF lens, then it will work fully on an EOS SLR, regardless of it being digital or film.

I've been using Nikon gear for nearly 30 years, and I still can't get my head round all the various permutations! So yes; Canon users have a distinct advantage there.

As for the wedding thing, when people want to shoot like the big dogs, they tend to gravitate towards the same equipment they shoot with and the likes of Jose Villa, Elizabeth Messina and a few others all use the 1v which I think helps with it's demand amongst that demographic of shooters. I used to frequent a few of the FB groups of wedding photographers doing the same and the 1v would be their go-to 35mm body.

See; I've never heard of those people. I doubt many others have either. No disrespect, but it's not a niche that many would look to for great inspiration, as they would perhaps with photojournalism/news, sports, fashion, etc. I seriously doubt many photographers would base their purchasing decisions on what a few wedding photographers use. And such wedding photographers use a variety of kit anyway. I'm sure a large number used Nikon gear, as well as other brands.

Anyway.

The F5 is a beast and it's colour matrix metering is supposedly superb (Haven't tried it yet).

You should. It's an absolute tank of a cam. Works with most current Nikkor lenses, too. A very versatile piece of kit. Have to say, I do prefer the F4, but that's more for sentimental reasons than anything else. The F4 is more like the classic Nikons. Lovely.

 

[AZ6]

As for Nikon being better in your opinion, what were most professional sports and press photographers using between 2000 and the advent of pro DSLRs in around 2005? The answer is, the Canon EOS 1v.

Is it? Right. OK then. Except it's not, because professional photographers use a whole variety of kit; some even use more than one brand! Imagine! Yes, a lot of SPORTS photographers used Canon gear, as the AF was reputedly better and the cameras best suited to that type of use, but loads of photojournalists, news, press photographers etc used Nikon. Without actual figures, we can't know such things for sure anyway, so it's daft to assert something as fact.

As for my opinion; well, I've handled and used countless different cameras. Hundreds, thousands even. I own an EOS 1, along with the F4, F5 and F100. The Nikons are, imo, better tools. But that's my subjective opinion, not fact. The EOS is a great camera, no doubt. The 1/3 stop exposure adjustment is a great feature. But it's viewfinder isn't as good, and I prefer the handling of the Nikons. What a load of other photographers used in a 5 year period is of absolutely no interest to me. I really, really don't care. I choose my tools according to MY needs, not cos of what other people use. Personally, I love my old FM2, which again imo, is one of the best film cams ever made, by anyone. It lacks this, it lacks that, etc etc etc. But as a tool, it's absolutely marvellous. I need to buy another one actually...

 

[FishyFish]

Ahh, system advocacy...

Let's just jump to the inevitable end-point and ask the question: Which camera would have best helped @Andysnap escape from the rising tide? Perhaps a "plasticky" Canon might have made for a suitable flotation device? Maybe the "metally" Nikon might have been fashioned into a stepping stone?

 

[Deleted member 21335]

See; I've never heard of those people. I doubt many others have either. No disrespect, but it's not a niche that many would look to for great inspiration, as they would perhaps with photojournalism/news, sports, fashion, etc. I seriously doubt many photographers would base their purchasing decisions on what a few wedding photographers use. And such wedding photographers use a variety of kit anyway. I'm sure a large number used Nikon gear, as well as other brands.

No, I agree with you but the fact you haven't heard of them means you don't want to shoot weddings on film. Those who do have heard of them and follow them and whilst it's very much a niche, it does go some way to answering your original question that I responded to, which was why the 1v commands a higher price which it is in some ways not as 'good'?! as the Nikon variants, that was all. These people also use the Contax 645 and the prices have gone the same way with those. Someone famous, I forget who, Kendall Jenner maybe? Posted a picture of herself using a Contax T2 and the prices of those went through the roof!

I am not at all trying to be argumentative. If you have seen my posts before, I avoid it as best I can on forums, I am just trying to suggest why the price variation may be a thing.

You should. It's an absolute tank of a cam. Works with most current Nikkor lenses, too. A very versatile piece of kit. Have to say, I do prefer the F4, but that's more for sentimental reasons than anything else. The F4 is more like the classic Nikons. Lovely.

I have one here. Bought it a week or two ago and paired it with a 35mm F2 AF-D. Haven't had chance to use it yet unfortunately but I am looking forward to it.

 

[AZ6]

For me personally, I don't agree. More possibilities for what? I in no way miss digital capture and if, as per the title of this thread, the death of analogue photography happened, I would probably quit altogether.

Film has made me a better photographer.

Digital allows me to capture images in much lower light than film ever did. I can shoot right down to ISO 51,200 on my Z6, and get useable images. I only ever dared shooting at ISO 6400 a couple of times, and that wasn't a great success; the resulting images were very, very grainy, and whilst that can be a desirable quality, it just doesn't work if you do actually need a bit of sharpness. There are numerous other advantages to using digital as well, which I can't be bothered going into. Believe me; I was a film stalwart right up until 8 years ago. I do 'get' why film is such a wonderful medium. But as I said above, the real 'medium' is photography, and digital cameras are just, in many ways, better tools. You don't have to use digital at all. But personally, I just think that's self-limiting. Your choice though.

Film made me a good photographer; digital made me a better one.

 

[AZ6]

Maybe the "metally" Nikon might have been fashioned into a stepping stone?

'Metally' isn't even a word.

 

[FishyFish]

'Metally' isn't even a word.

There's a bit of metal in there somewhere, but there's a lot of plastic too. I see the EOS 1 being similar to my F801s (or even my D600) in that respect. My F4 is noticeably more metally. The EOS 1 and F100 weigh the same with batteries. The F4 is another 200g or so heavier. Substantial. Interestingly, the PDB-E2 adds a huge chunk of weight to the EOS 1, and feels really well built, proper lump of metal that. But then there's that silly flimsy little plastic door for those tiny function buttons. Oh and the viewfinder eyecup is a crap fit.

 

[Mr Badger]

As for my opinion; well, I've handled and used countless different cameras. Hundreds, thousands even. I own an EOS 1, along with the F4, F5 and F100. The Nikons are, imo, better tools. But that's my subjective opinion, not fact. The EOS is a great camera, no doubt. The 1/3 stop exposure adjustment is a great feature. But it's viewfinder isn't as good, and I prefer the handling of the Nikons. What a load of other photographers used in a 5 year period is of absolutely no interest to me. I really, really don't care. I choose my tools according to MY needs, not cos of what other people use.

However, what your preferences and opinions are doesn't affect the price of used pro and prosumer grade EOS 35mm SLR film cameras. If you personally prefer Nikon then that's all that should matter to you, but don't confuse the EOS 1 with the EOS 1v, a quick look at the current prices for both should tell you all you need to know there.

 

[Andysnap]

Ahh, system advocacy...

Let's just jump to the inevitable end-point and ask the question: Which camera would have best helped @Andysnap escape from the rising tide? Perhaps a "plasticky" Canon might have made for a suitable flotation device? Maybe the "metally" Nikon might have been fashioned into a stepping stone?

Wista Field, wood floats and there's room to climb in with the bellows extended.

 

[trypdal]

You don't need to pay north of £500 for a half decent DSLR. There's many reasons to choose film over digital, price of the camera isn't one of them.

Speaking for myself, I couldn't disagree more with the above. Initial monetary investment is very much one of the main reasons I abandoned digital photography.

Anything less than 1500 quid gets you, for my needs, a DSLR that is crippled in some way.

However, 100 quid can get me an absolutely magnificent SLR which does everything I want it to do, and nothing I don't.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Anything less than 1500 quid gets you, for my needs, a DSLR that is crippled in some way.

Would you be prepared to elaborate on that? I ask because having owned several dSLRs from both Canon and Nikon, none costing half that figure, I've not found any that I feel are "crippled". After a while I've found others that I decided would suit me better but even my first Canon 10D did everything I wanted at the time.

 

[ChrisR]

See, I’d advocate using film from the beginning. The mistakes are meaningful in that it costs money. I found learning on film made me think more, as in the back of my mind, there was a consequence to taking a crap photo, and the learning curve was steepened as a result. Surely not taking a mundane shot should probably be everyone’s objective, no?

I'm a bit reluctant to step back into this thread, but I've been thinking about this quite a lot, Jonathan. For several years I've held the opposite view, that film was less satisfactory for learning than digital. My reasoning has been that the feedback loop for film (shoot, complete film, process, scan/print, view) was so long that I find it difficult to make the learning connection between what I did and the results. Add to that the lack of metadata on film shots (or conversely, the existence of EXIF metadata for digital), and that further complicates (benefits in the case of digital) learning. This is all borne out for me by my continuing to make the same basic errors time and time again, like forgetting how much darker the shaded parts of a light-dappled tree trunk are.

You might note however, that I shoot almost exclusively 135 film, in 36-shot lengths, and although I do usually get through several films a month, these will often get batched up for devving. On the few occasions I've shot 4x5 I've generally taken quite good notes, and devved the sheets very soon after, so the feedback loop is shorter. And since you are (I believe) mostly a 4x5 shooter, perhaps this partly explains the different view.

By the way, I actually like the delayed satisfaction part of film photography. And I think I do generally value each exposure more. I do sometimes take a few similar shots, maybe bracketing exposure, maybe a slightly different viewpoint, but only rarely do I take, say, a dozen or more of the same subject!

 

[AZ6]

However, what your preferences and opinions are doesn't affect the price of used pro and prosumer grade EOS 35mm SLR film cameras. If you personally prefer Nikon then that's all that should matter to you, but don't confuse the EOS 1 with the EOS 1v, a quick look at the current prices for both should tell you all you need to know there.

No I'm well aware of the prices. That's why I bought an EOS-1. No way would I spend £400+ on a Canon film body, when I'm essentially a Nikon shooter. I bought one cheap, cos I wanted to give it a go, put some film thought it, learn a bit about how Canon did things. I might end up selling it on again. There's no doubt it's a great cam. It wouldn't have sold in such large numbers if it wasn't. And yes; Canon got the AF right from the beginning, whereas Nikon focussed on producing more versatile tools. Horses for courses. But to say 'most pro sports and press photographers were using the EOS 1v between 2000 and 2005' is just unsubstantiated opinion. Nothing else. Because we have no facts with which to back up that assertion. But let's not argue over opinions; I am not at all 'down' on Canon; I'd also like an F1n and a T90 in my collection. I'm more of a Nikon fan because the brand was more iconic when I was growing up, the people who taught me photography, used Nikons, not to mention photographers I really admired, such as Don McCullin, and I preferred how Nikons worked; my first Nikon camera was an FM2 which I still have. Before that, I had a Canon AE-1 which I just couldn't get on with. Had I'd had an A-1, who knows, things might have been very different (I'd have been having to choose whether to continue with the MF system, or switch to the new AF system, for one). You see? Choices are dictated by experiences and needs. Were I starting from scratch right now, and choosing between different systems, I'd likely go for Sony over both Canon and Nikon. So there you go.

No but yeah but no but...

Speaking for myself, I couldn't disagree more with the above. Initial monetary investment is very much one of the main reasons I abandoned digital photography.

Anything less than 1500 quid gets you, for my needs, a DSLR that is crippled in some way.

However, 100 quid can get me an absolutely magnificent SLR which does everything I want it to do, and nothing I don't.

That's a fair point. I'd question why you 'need' a camera costing more than £1500, unless you're a professional who has specific needs only a £1500+ cam can offer, though. A £320 Nikon D3300 kit was more than adequate for my 'needs', my Z6 was much more what I actually 'wanted', though.

It is true you can get a magnificent SLR for less than £100. EOS 5 or Nikon D90X for £50-80. Nikon FM, Canon A-1 even. Loads of decent Pentax, Minolta, Olympus etc. Loads. You can get a magnificent film SLR for less than £40 even, I reckon. Not a Pentax K1000 though; I bought an ex-college one for a tenner, years ago. It's fine. They go for £150 up, now!!!! No I'm keeping it get yer hands off it's mine.

 

[FruitFlakes]

£1500 gets you a D810 or a D4. You could get a D800 and a few 1.8G primes for £1500. World Press Photo winners and Vogue covers have been shot on less capable cameras.

 

[trypdal]

That's a fair point. I'd question why you 'need' a camera costing more than £1500, unless you're a professional who has specific needs only a £1500+ cam can offer, though. A £320 Nikon D3300 kit was more than adequate for my 'needs', my Z6 was much more what I actually 'wanted', though.
.

My definition of 'crippled' encapsulates one or more of the points below

a. poor viewfinder.
b. too big
c. too heavy
d. useless features I don't need
e. cannot use some of the lenses I own
f. too expensive

I have owned a score of Nikon DSLRs. D3200, D5500, D7100, D200. Before that, I owned a number of Nikon SLRs. I started with a F601, then F100, then FE. Now I have an F601, an FE and an Olympus OM2n.

How do all these cameras fare in terms of the (a,b,c,d,e,f) points above?

-D3200, D5500 - fail a) and e). They have a pentamirror-based viewfinder. This makes them, to me, severely crippled. They have a great sensor mind you, and they don't fail c) d) and f), but the viewfinder is a tiny hole that severely penalised my photography and its enjoyment. Also, they have limited support for my old Ai-S and AF-D lenses.
-D7100 - fails a),b) and gets into c) failure territory. The viewfinder here is pentaprism-based, but still inferior to any viewfinder on any Nikon film camera I've owned. The D7100 didn't fail e), though.
-D200 - fails a),b),c). Also, for my photography, its CCD sensor was also arguably rather primitive, and I found its rendition of high contrast scenes extremely limiting in my photography.

I handled many times a Df and a D850. These have good pentaprism-, and not pentamirror-based, viewfinders. Why are they, for my purposes, and relative to an SLR costing 20 times less, not suitable? Because they fail b), c), d) and above all f).

How about my F601, Olympus OM2n and FE?

1. They all have great viewfinders. The OM2n is the star here. Composing through its viewfinder is a pleasure and results in me taking better shots for my taste. All of these cameras don't fail a)
2. They are all light and compact. The FE and Olympus OM2n are the stars here - so small and light. All of these cameras don't fail b) and c)
3. Features. Do I have to say anything thing about features on the FE and OM2n? You have to set focus, aperture, shutter speed. That's all I want to be distracted by. The F601 has a few more things, eg if I feel like playing with matrix/centre-weighted metering I can. I mostly only use the AF in 'single' mode. So all cameras pass d)
4. I can use all of the Nikon lenses I own on the FE and F601 without any problems.
5. These cameras cost me, respectively, 40, 60, and 75 pounds.

So to summarise - a digital camera with the combination of features, price and ergonomics I need just does not seem to exist: it's either cheap and crippled, or too expensive, bulky, heavy and packed with useless (to me) features.

"Try a mirrorless" some might say. I did. I owned a Fujifilm XT-10 for a while, with a beautiful tiny 27mm pancake lens. This was close to being the least 'crippled' digital camera I've ever owned, with one glaring flaw: the performance of its Xtrans sensor. This was so spectacularly poor at rendering detail for the kind of photography I do (a search for Fujifilm 'painterly effect' or 'worms' will return pages and pages, mine had it in spades) and so noticeably inferior to the Bayer sensor in my Nikons that I sold it after only a few months. My current film workflow is able to render fine detail - for my taste - much better than that Xtrans sensor.

So yes, why reinvent the wheel when a 50 euro film SLR does all I want it to do, costs less to begin with, is light enough to carry everywhere, it's great to compose with, and gives me results I like.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

So yes, why reinvent the wheel when a 50 euro film SLR does all I want it to do, costs less to begin with, is light enough to carry everywhere, it's great to compose with, and gives me results I like.

That's interesting. Having used several of the cameras you were unhappy with (or close relatives), none of the things you found problematic seemed like drawbacks to me, Of course, one man's meat is another man's poison so it would be wrong of me to criticise you there.

When it comes to economics though, I think it becomes much clearer. The issue of capital cost depends a lot on how you go about things. I buy all my cameras second hand (or heavily discounted) and generally pass them on for a good proportion of what I paid (sometimes making a profit).

When it comes to running costs, the price per image is only the difference between what I paid for the camera and what I get back, divided by the number of images I take. Based on the 200,000 images currently in my files and allowing for my having deleted an average of 3 images for each of those I kept I spend under a penny per image which is very much cheaper than the roughly 25p per image per 35mm frame allowing for processing costs.

Of course, if you get more pleasure from film than from digital that's fine but I don't think film can be justified on economic grounds.

 

[Asha]

Ahh, system advocacy...

Let's just jump to the inevitable end-point and ask the question: Which camera would have best helped @Andysnap escape from the rising tide? Perhaps a "plasticky" Canon might have made for a suitable flotation device? Maybe the "metally" Nikon might have been fashioned into a stepping stone?

Had it been a 10x8 intrepid , he could have climbed inside and sailed ashore [emoji23]

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

I have always had a problem with shooting film and then digitizing it , it seems to defeat the point although I really enjoy it ! With this in mind and trying to cut out the cost of processing and digitizing I brought a Sony A6000 costing me much more than I wanted to pay and I absolutely hate using it , I've tried putting manual film lenses on it and shooting it in total manual and I still don't like it, I seriously feel let down with myself for buying it and wish I'd gone the Holga route instead. I have also noticed a few digital fans who have come into the film section to slag film off which I find a bit odd , I think for a lot of people rising film costs will kill film, with higher prices less people use it, less profit so the priice goes up until it eats it's self completely.

 

[AZ6]

My definition of 'crippled' encapsulates one or more of the points below

a. poor viewfinder.
b. too big
c. too heavy
d. useless features I don't need
e. cannot use some of the lenses I own
f. too expensive

I have owned a score of Nikon DSLRs. D3200, D5500, D7100, D200. Before that, I owned a number of Nikon SLRs. I started with a F601, then F100, then FE. Now I have an F601, an FE and an Olympus OM2n.

How do all these cameras fare in terms of the (a,b,c,d,e,f) points above?

-D3200, D5500 - fail a) and e). They have a pentamirror-based viewfinder. This makes them, to me, severely crippled. They have a great sensor mind you, and they don't fail c) d) and f), but the viewfinder is a tiny hole that severely penalised my photography and its enjoyment. Also, they have limited support for my old Ai-S and AF-D lenses.
-D7100 - fails a),b) and gets into c) failure territory. The viewfinder here is pentaprism-based, but still inferior to any viewfinder on any Nikon film camera I've owned. The D7100 didn't fail e), though.
-D200 - fails a),b),c). Also, for my photography, its CCD sensor was also arguably rather primitive, and I found its rendition of high contrast scenes extremely limiting in my photography.

I handled many times a Df and a D850. These have good pentaprism-, and not pentamirror-based, viewfinders. Why are they, for my purposes, and relative to an SLR costing 20 times less, not suitable? Because they fail b), c), d) and above all f).

How about my F601, Olympus OM2n and FE?

1. They all have great viewfinders. The OM2n is the star here. Composing through its viewfinder is a pleasure and results in me taking better shots for my taste. All of these cameras don't fail a)
2. They are all light and compact. The FE and Olympus OM2n are the stars here - so small and light. All of these cameras don't fail b) and c)
3. Features. Do I have to say anything thing about features on the FE and OM2n? You have to set focus, aperture, shutter speed. That's all I want to be distracted by. The F601 has a few more things, eg if I feel like playing with matrix/centre-weighted metering I can. I mostly only use the AF in 'single' mode. So all cameras pass d)
4. I can use all of the Nikon lenses I own on the FE and F601 without any problems.
5. These cameras cost me, respectively, 40, 60, and 75 pounds.

So to summarise - a digital camera with the combination of features, price and ergonomics I need just does not seem to exist: it's either cheap and crippled, or too expensive, bulky, heavy and packed with useless (to me) features.

"Try a mirrorless" I hear. I did. I owned a Fujifilm XT-10 for a while, with a beautiful tiny 27mm pancake lens. This was close to being the least 'crippled' digital camera I've ever owned, with one glaring flaw: the performance of its Xtrans sensor. This was so spectacularly poor at rendering detail for the kind of photography I do (a search for Fujifilm 'painterly effect' or 'worms' will return pages and pages, mine had it in spades) and so noticeably inferior to the Bayer sensor in my Nikons that I sold it after only a few months. My current film workflow is able to render fine detail - for my taste - much better than that Xtrans sensor.

So yes, why reinvent the wheel when a 50 euro film SLR does all I want it to do, costs less to begin with, is light enough to carry everywhere, it's great to compose with, and gives me results I like.

I've read all this, several times now, and I still can't claim to really understand it. It's confusing and self-contadictory. You say that 'Anything less than 1500 quid gets you, for my needs, a DSLR that is crippled in some way', yet then go on to state that cameras that cost more than this are also 'crippled'?Other points include cameras having features you 'don't need'. That's fine, so do mine. You don't have to use them. My D600 has a 'Scene' mode on the mode selector dial. I have never used it. I don't actually know how to, truth be told. Because I don't need to. I can turn everything onto manual only, and shoot like I used to on my FM2. Lovely. I rarely use anything other than Manual, Single shot, single point AF, manual ISO. I wouldn't miss all those extra features if they weren't there. But I can still use the cam as if they weren't.

4. I can use all of the Nikon lenses I own on the FE and F601 without any problems.

I can use all the Nikon lenses I own on my Z6. Without any major issues. Some of them, I can't use on my F801s and FM2. And the AF-S lenses, I can only use in Programme mode on my F4.


Blah de blah de blah. And so forth.


I think what you mean, is that you can't get what's available, to work for you. That's not the fault of the equipment; none of those cameras are 'crippled'. You prefer working with film; that's fine, nobody's saying you can't. Enjoy yourself.

 

[Mr Badger]

I'm more of a Nikon fan because the brand was more iconic when I was growing up, the people who taught me photography, used Nikons, not to mention photographers I really admired, such as Don McCullin.

This Don McCullin?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LALtLUjSeJs

Look like he finally realised! Sorry... I couldn't believe my luck when you mentioned him!

Joking (and our previous banter on this and other threads) aside, as I've said before, generally speaking you can't go far wrong with either Canon or Nikon (D)SLRs, it's what you prefer. Sometimes Canon noses ahead, sometimes Nikon, and long may that continue as it prevents stagnation and gives us some great cameras!

Before that, I had a Canon AE-1 which I just couldn't get on with. Had I'd had an A-1, who knows, things might have been very different .

I owned an AE-1 too for a few weeks while my A-1 was in for a service. Put it this way (and I know the AE-1 was a best seller) I still own my A-1! So I think your journey might well have been different if you'd had an A-1 instead - it was a real technological milestone of a camera, which, these days, I feel, doesn't get the recognition it really deserves as the camera that first gave us the PASM (P, AV, TV & M in Canon speak) modes we now take for granted. In fact, if you're thinking about a Canon FD camera then I'd suggest the A-1 ahead of the T90, as there's too much to go wrong on an ageing T90.

 

[trypdal]

Apologies - let me express my thoughts in simpler terms for you

-for MY needs, most cheap DSLRs and digital cameras are crippled by poor ergonomics, functionality and/or lack of features
-for MY needs, most expensive DSLRs are crippled by being too big, too heavy, too expensive, too full of useless buttons, displays, interfaces, modes and other computer-style features that distract me from my style of photography.

Your Z6. Congratulations on your purchase. Sounds like it works for you. For me, it's a crippled camera. It doesn't really show me the scene, but an arguably laggy digital representation of it via a digital 'viewfinder'. I don't need this. Also, it's way dearer than I'd be prepared to pay, it has features I don't need, and that distract me from taking photos, it has huge prime lenses, which are bulky and expensive, and wouldn't give me significantly better pictures than those I get with a tiny, simple Zuiko OM 50mm f/1.8. Again, by 'better' here I mean better for my taste.

Your D600. Great camera I'm sure. Too heavy, too expensive, too many buttons, too many dials for my taste. After a couple of hours hanging from my neck, I'd want to throw it away.

I can very much get what's available to work for me. I can get plenty of cheap beautifully designed old cameras to work for me.

Hope this clarified it for you.

I've read all this, several times now, and I still can't claim to really understand it. It's confusing and self-contadictory. You say that 'Anything less than 1500 quid gets you, for my needs, a DSLR that is crippled in some way', yet then go on to state that cameras that cost more than this are also 'crippled'?Other points include cameras having features you 'don't need'. That's fine, so do mine. You don't have to use them. My D600 has a 'Scene' mode on the mode selector dial. I have never used it. I don't actually know how to, truth be told. Because I don't need to. I can turn everything onto manual only, and shoot like I used to on my FM2. Lovely. I rarely use anything other than Manual, Single shot, single point AF, manual ISO. I wouldn't miss all those extra features if they weren't there. But I can still use the cam as if they weren't.



I can use all the Nikon lenses I own on my Z6. Without any major issues. Some of them, I can't use on my F801s and FM2. And the AF-S lenses, I can only use in Programme mode on my F4.


Blah de blah de blah. And so forth.


I think what you mean, is that you can't get what's available, to work for you. That's not the fault of the equipment; none of those cameras are 'crippled'. You prefer working with film; that's fine, nobody's saying you can't. Enjoy yourself.

 

[Petrochemist]

Speaking for myself, I couldn't disagree more with the above. Initial monetary investment is very much one of the main reasons I abandoned digital photography.

Anything less than 1500 quid gets you, for my needs, a DSLR that is crippled in some way.

However, 100 quid can get me an absolutely magnificent SLR which does everything I want it to do, and nothing I don't.

For £150 you can pick up a used DSLR that will generally be able to match 35mm film in quality, give instant feedback as well as EXIF data which can be useful when reviewing images.

AFAIK there will never be a camera of any sort that is best in every conceivable way - your 'crippled in some way' seem to reflect it's just not as good as some of the other options.
Every film camera is also crippled in many ways compared to digital cameras.

You claim a £100 film camera does everything you need, then I expect you don't need high ISO, fast AF, high burst rates... A ten year old digital camera probably will also be able to provide everything you need. The fact it throws in a few extra abilities you don't want (such as changing ISO & WB on a shot by shot basis?)

Despite the near zero cost of shooting with digital, it is still possible to shoot with care rather than just spray & pray.

I'll not deny that there can be a huge amount of pleasure in getting good results with older technology (film included) but I don't see there any need to try to knock digital from that basis.

 

[RaglanSurf]

Looks like we’re heading towards the old film vs digital debate.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Looks like we’re heading towards the old film vs digital debate.

Standard. Was always going to happen. I reluctantly posted in this thread and it was always going to go that way.

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

I'll not deny that there can be a huge amount of pleasure in getting good results with older technology (film included) but I don't see there any need to try to knock digital from that basis.

I have to admit, I do struggle a bit with the 'spray and pray' aspect of digital photography. I know, particularly where street and documentary photography is concerned, the best way of getting a good shot is to take more photos (shoot more cra*p!), but where does ability end and 'a room full of monkeys and typewriters eventually producing something worthwhile' begin? I think that might be a slightly uncomfortable and probably unanswerable question?

 

[Mr Badger]

Looks like we’re heading towards the old film vs digital debate.

Second only to the Nikon v Canon debate!